fixpafandomcom-20200216-history
Temp
Dan Sullivan and others wrote, in part: Voters' Choice Act and ballot access No brainer: We already support this and should think in terms of working with the other minor parties to campaign for it. Uncounted Write-in Votes Also see electronic voting machines. The write-in problem is a policy and procedure one. Many counties simply do not count write-in votes. The commonwealth does not pressure counties to provide this information for the final tally. The technology is there and it works. They simply choose not to use it because they do not see negative repercussions for failing to follow election law. Leasing the turnpike. I am opposed to it for several reasons. One is that the gasoline burned by people using the turnpike pays for other roads, so turnpike users are paying twice. Another is that turnpike ownership would not be "free enterprise," but would be a licensed monopoly. A third is that it is essentially a concealed borrowing scheme, so this administration can have a lot of money to play with and say it is not raising taxes. However, a turnpike toll is nothing but a road tax. People whose communities are dependent on the turnpike will indeed be paying a tax in perpetuity so other people can get "free" mass transit. The REAL ID drivers license. I'm sure we are all opposed to this. The question becomes how do we get the legislators to oppose it? This is one of those issues where we clearly see the dangers but most people don't care. Maybe it would help to have images of old movies with Nazis saying, "Papers? Vere are your papers?" The good thing about the old Soviet dictators is that reaction against them caused us to make a point of not being like them. Act 1 (the shift from property to income taxes) I posted against that. Constitutional convention There was some discussion about that. The problem is that we won't get the convention we want, but the convention legislators want. Once it looks likely that the convention will happen, lobbyists will start cramming their pet ideas into it, and legislators will obligingly go along. Lobbyists will also get their cronies elected as delegates. Draft Whereas political reforms are desperately needed in Pennsylvania and there are calls for a state constitutional convention; and Whereas only the state legislature has the authority to convene and define the scope, focus and limits of said convention; but Whereas the current state legislature has proven itself to be too undisciplined and unreliable to manage said convention without undue risk to the State, its citizens and their fundamental rights; so be it RESOLVED that the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania opposes convening a state constitutional convention at this time and urges everyone to consider the enormous downside risk to the State, its citizens and their fundamental rights should opportunistic, business-as-usual, special interests control said convention; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED that in the event that this legislature convenes a constitutional convention, the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania urges all Pennsylvanians to monitor every suggested reform as if it is our very last chance at limiting state government's intrusions into our wallets and pocketbooks, finances, private property, gun safes, automobiles, bedrooms, classrooms, doctor's offices, voting booths and our fundamental rights declared in Article 1 of the Pennsylvania constitution. comment Well stated. Do we need the second paragraph? It could be said that only the Council of Censors has the authority to convene a convention. It could be changed to: > Whereas the state legislature claims the unique authority to convene > and define the scope, focus and limits of said convention; but I might include words that instruct the legislature to obey the constitution we have, rather then monkey around under the hood. Jim comment Tim M wrote: The reason I would see for a state convention is to correct some serious defect in the constitution it's self. What appears to be defective is the cabal who are responsible for protecting and defending the constitution abuse it at any self serving whim, as recently highlighted by but not limited to the instant pay raise. If we open Pandora's box of political reform - in a process most likely controlled by the very people the constitution was meant to restrain - I am skeptical that meaningful reform would come of it. We will do well to continue to be tireless advocates for them to stick to the constitution as written, or replace them in office rather then craft duplicate clauses so they can be ignored as well. re-write comment from Mark C That said, how about this rewrite? I'm tempted do drop the entire last "Further Resolved" part for brevity's sake. I like the way it reads, but it's probably better suited for a LTE. -------------------- Whereas political change is desperately needed in Pennsylvania resulting in calls for a state constitutional convention to facilitate that change; and Whereas the recent state legislatures have proven themselves too undisciplined and too unprincipled to follow the current Pennsylvania constitution, suggesting that wholesale personnel changes in the legislature would be more productive than a constitutional change; so be it RESOLVED that the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania opposes convening a state constitutional convention at this time and urges everyone to consider the enormous downside risk to the State, its citizens and their fundamental rights should opportunistic, business-as-usual, special interests control said convention and maintain control of the state legislature; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED that in the event of a constitutional convention, the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania urges all Pennsylvanians to monitor every suggested reform as if it is our very last chance at limiting state government's intrusions into our wallets and pocketbooks, finances, private property, gun safes, automobiles, bedrooms, classrooms, doctor's offices, voting booths and our fundamental rights declared in Article 1 of the Pennsylvania constitution. Dave W comment From attending the hearing, I gathered that a large part of the problem that they are trying to address is the over reaching power of the PA Supreme Court that they grabbed from an interpretation of an amendment made in the last Constitutional Convention. This has resulted in the Supreme Court being able to overturn the Assembly's attempt to overturn their own pay grab. Given that, I think that they would be better off to try to amend the Constitution the traditional way to solve this problem. A very specific single problem such as that does not justify the risks of opening up Pandora's Box. Especially if you consider that the last Constitutional Convention caused the very problem they are trying to solve. I also have a strong feeling from attending the hearing that public opinion is generally not in favor of a Constitutional Convention. Hopefully this trend will continue in the two hearings to follow. -David Weiser- comment My own view is that even the amendments have tended to deteriorate both the PA Constitution and the US Constitution, and that a convention would make things worse still. I think it is too early to "polish the knobs" on Mark Crowley's proposal, the purpose of which is just for us to have an understanding we can agree upon. Then, if people want to serve on a PA Constitution Committee, we can try to identify other people and other groups whose views are more or less compatible with our own, and also research arguments against calling the convention. The two tasks are intertwined, as the people who are opposed will bring arguments we can build upon. Our role would be to make distinctly libertarian arguments that resonate with those who might support us. -ds comment I like the last "Further Resolved", though I think it should be more detailed. I think it should be there for the case where if the Constitutional Convention is convened, we have an official solid stance on how we feel that it should be dealt with. -David Weiser- MORE * Bob Barr Process of Libertarian Party > I approve of this plan, with all it's faults. I imagine that > some challenges that will pop up will include the size of > county level parties, and the ongoing debate as to whether > or not the LP should focus more on getting candidates > elected or if it should focus more on being an activist > group. I think this plan might actually resolve some of the > latter. So where do we begin? Would this be something to > bring up at the LPPa convention? Those of us who are interested and motivated could still working now, beginning with soliciting LPPa board members for feedback. We just could not represent ourselves as speaking on behalf of the LPPa until the LPPa board formally approves it or something like it. The board should definitely appoint the organizing committee and at least the chairs of the issues committees. The core issue positions should also be subject to board approval. Meanwhile, an informal sense of the board would be enough to give self-starters something to sink their teeth into. Fund-raising makes everything else easier, so I would suggest that the board form a fund-raising sub-committee if it does not already have one. Those who have donated the most themselves tend to the be best fund-raisers because they speak from the authority of having put their money where their mouths are. For the same reason, those who have done the most volunteer work tend to be the best volunteer recruiters. It will probably be quite a while before we can afford a paid fund- raiser, a paid organizer and a paid publicist, so everything has to be done by volunteers. It's a lot of effort at first, as we "get the kite into the air." However, each success is like a little breeze. Here is what I will do, pending LPPa board approval. I will help develop, train and advise the organizing committee, but I will not serve on it. This is because I will be more trusted as an trainer and adviser if I do not vote on policy directing. I will assist the fund-raising sub-committee. I will serve on the Ron Paul committee. I will serve on the tax committee if the LP adopts a resolution similar to the one I proposed earlier. Now the question becomes, who else will serve on these or other committees? We don't need a lot of committees. It's better to have two or three that are very effective than 20 that aren't getting much done. There is a reality that effective committees need the full attention of the board and the organizing committee, and also need dedicated volunteers. Thus, the priorities given each committee will be a dynamic compromise between which ones the board and the organizing committee are most interested in supporting and which ones have the most committed and effective volunteers. I want to note that this is NOT a question of "whether or not the LP should focus more on getting candidates elected." Rather, this is an indirect approach to getting candidates elected. Its premise is that potential candidates (and the party itself) become electable by accomplishing things and developing broader constituencies who will help them. -ds News from the Pennsylvania General Assembly 10/17/2006, 7:50 p.m. ET The Associated Press ALLENTOWN BASEBALL: The Senate unanimously approved a measure that would take away the city of Allentown's ability to tax the sales of tickets at professional sporting events. The bill goes to the House for consideration. POLLUTION PENALTIES: The Senate unanimously approved legislation to increase penalties for people who pollute the state's waterways. The bill would make intentional violations of Pennsylvania's Clean Streams Law a felony — rather than a third-degree misdemeanor — and boost penalties from a maximum of five years in prison and a $25,000 fine to a maximum of seven years in prison and a $50,000 fine. Attorney General Tom Corbett supports the legislation. The bill goes to Gov. Ed Rendell for consideration. CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE: Rep. Samuel Rohrer, R-Berks, called for a legislative study of how Gov. Ed Rendell's plan to increase the number of children covered by state-subsidized health insurance would affect private-sector health insurance programs. Rohrer is sponsoring a resolution calling for the study of the Cover All Kids program to be completed within nine months. Rendell's administration hopes to begin offering the benefits in January using $4.4 million set aside in the state budget, but lawmakers have yet to pass legislation that would establish guidelines for the program. CHILD PHOTOGRAPHS: The Senate unanimously approved legislation that would require state child welfare agencies to keep a photograph in a child's case file. The legislation is named for 4-year-old Kristen Tatar. The bill goes to Gov. Ed Rendell for consideration. QUOTEWORTHY: "I think it's an important step forward on an issue that is essential to the health and well-being of Pennsylvanians." — Kathleen McGinty, the state secretary for the Department of Environmental Protection, on a 17-3 vote by a state board on a proposed rule that would give Pennsylvania a tougher prohibition on mercury emissions from its coal-fired power plants. LOOKING AHEAD: The Senate Transportation Committee will hold a public hearing Wednesday on legislation that would require automakers and dealers to disclose information relating to vehicles that are equipped with event data recorders or sensing and diagnostic modules. IN FACT: Falkner Swamp Reformed Church in near New Hanover, Montgomery County, is the oldest congregation in continuous existence in the evangelical and reformed church. It was organized Oct. 15, 1725, by Rev. John Philip Boehm, who founded the German Reformed Church in Pennsylvania. The present building dates to 1790.